Prof. Taga Hidetoshi(Waseda University)
Prof. Amako Satoshi:
The importance of Asian Human Security
The importance of this symposium
We should not only know what happen, but also what we can do. To consider the security issue in Asia, I propose a complementary approach and I call it Asian Human Security (AHC). I hope intellectuals in Asia to contribute their efforts on this issue. This is the backdrop of this conference. The purpose of this community can be concluded into four things:
1. To construct an intellectual network through the participation of active intellectuals in Asian counties.
2. To develop a forum for opinion exchange among Asian intellectuals on this issue.
3. To become a driver for free opinion change and discussion of Asian intellectuals on the response and measures towards specific issue.
4. AHC network aims at being a comprehensive network connecting existing ASIA-NET works and make specific proposals to government and international community in Asia.
Human Security in China: Some Conceptual Discussion (Pro. Richard Weixing Hu_
AHC is a functional and bottom up approach in advocating regional integration in Asia. People can be connected together by AHC. What kind of role can AHC play?
New pattern of regionalism after Cold War has been driven regional trade liberalization, as well as regional governance. AHC is a step forward to regional cultural integration. AHC can contribute to intergovernmental governance and it will be an activity- based movement. It is needed for regional integration.
Human security, as opposed to national security, describes the complex of interrelated threats to the important dimensions of individual well-beings. The referent of security should not just the state, but also include individual.
Security is no longer a one-dimensioned issue focused on military defense of the state. Instead, the state must consider a much wider set of security challenges, from environmental pollution, drug trafficking, terrorism, organized crimes, environment degradation, civil and ethnic conflict to poverty, infectious diseases, economic deprivation, and transnational terrorism, and use different strategies to protect human security of its citizens, not only from outside, but also inside.
Securing states do not automatically mean securing individuals. The human security approach emphasizes on how to empower people and societies as a means of security. People contribute by identifying and implementing solutions to insecurity.
The concept of international public space can contribute the regional integration in transnational perspective.
Human security in China: in the initial stage and at the beginning.
Our network should play a role for promoting human security, although we have different concept to so-called security.
Prof. Wen Tiejun (Renmin University, China)
We should stop “ism” debate and look at it through Oriental capitalism and western capitalism. To move it from ideological perspective to practical perspective.
The key is that the states try to complete the primary stage of industrialization, by taking land from countryside.
The real problem in China now is to offering job opportunities to millions of labor-aged populations
There is no exact globalization since the establishment of WTO. We have seen the emergence of two regional commercial zones like EU, North American Trade Zone. Asian plus Three is the next possibility. The emergence of Dollar system and EU system is a challenge. The world faces the possible conflicts of two main dollar systems, which threats human security in Asia. Both China and Japan should worry about our economic in this conflict and should aware EU-USA oriented financial capitalization.
Why did financial crisis happen frequently after the establishment of WTO since 1994? The 1998 financial crisis did not hit down China, Japan and South Korean. The reason is that all of their economy does not only rely on hot money, but also agriculture and industrial sector.
We should not look at this problem through ideology perspective: Cold War / post Cold War perspective. My argument is the conflict between oriental state capitalism and Western market capitalism matters.
Asian people cannot achieve regional integration without creating regional financial center
Human Security and DPRK Human Rights Act in the US (Pro. Yang Ki-Wong)
Definition of human security is very important compared with other concept like human rights and human developments. Human security is a boundary concept and a bridging concept linking other concepts like human rights, freedom, human needs and human developments.
It is also important to define the role of human security.
Human Security issue in DPRK
China’s attitude toward DPRK human right issue
Korea’s attitude toward DPRK human right issue
The concept of human security by Prof. Puji Pujiono(Indonesia)
Review the concept of human security
Define the focus of the discussion about what the mean of human security in Asia is.
Disasters of human security in Asia
We should pay attention the emerging disaster
Child Trafficking in Asia-Globalization of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
By Katsuma Yasushi(Waseda University, Japan)
the concept of human security
Q: I am a businessman travailing around world and I am impressed by Prof. Wen’s analysis. You mentioned about the American capital hegemony, but don’t you think the willingness of the nations is also important? For example, Japan concerns a lot about how American are views during the Asian Financial Crisis, and then it decided what to do? What do you think about this issue?
A: I think I should explain more to you by tracking back to 1980s, with many stories. In short, any leading country in the process of integration must seek to control the regional financial center, such as the US control the North American Trade Zone , the power in North American, with many cheap power and natural resources offered by Canada and Mexico. In EU, they had a historical opportunity after the collapse of USSR, as the economical situation and structure inside Europe, such within France and Germany, were very similar and it is very easy to integrate horizontally. For Asian counties, we still have to wait since there is no such opportunity offered.
Good afternoon dear Friends, especially my young friends,
I am honored to be the keynote speaker at this International Symposium. I see every single person in this hall as my friends, because we have a common cause: we all want a world of peace, equality, friendship, and development for every single human being on our planet regardless of race, nationality, class, or gender. We all want to be responsible citizens in our respective countries. We all want to think bigger than ourselves, our families and our own countries. We want to be global citizens with a vision and mission larger than our national identity and interest. We know that it takes the initiative of all global citizens to work together and gradually solve issues that concern every global citizen.
We all know that we need to build trust, respect and understanding among people of different countries. Yet it is not easy to build this bridge of friendship between and among countries, when there are such great differences in political systems, cultures, and beliefs. It is especially true when there have been wars and antagonistic feelings among people of those nations for centuries. It takes time and patience to build such bridges. In a year there are four seasons with rainy and sunny, cloudy and snowy days. The bridge builders have to be strong in their belief and skillful in terms of strategy, knowing what materials to use for each part of the bridge, when to stop the work, and when to start again. It is only possible when the builders are determined to make the impossible possible and to leave no stone unturned to reach the goal of Peace, Equality, Friendship and Development.
Tokyo is not a strange place to me. I was here from 1946 to 1951. My parents brought me here, right after World War Two when my father, Doc. Wu Wenzao was appointed head of the Political Section of the Chinese Mission to Japan. Tokyo is the city where I have learned so many things. It is here that I learned how people in the country of invasion suffered, and how they had to endure everything in silence, how they were purged as they were regarded as traitors when they showed any signs of protest against the unjust war and how they had to share the burden of being defeated and what kind of attitude we should take towards the people of the country of invasion. It is also here I learnt from my own mistake that nationalism is a double-edge sword. Distorted nationalism can lead to further wars which will bring more disaster than good to mankind.
Now I will tell you about the mistake I made when I first came to Tokyo in Nov., 1946. I was born in November, 1937, soon after World War Two started in China, which was July 7th with the Japanese militarists’ invasion of Northern China. My parents were always trying to escape the Japanese invaders and their bombing. We were always on the move, never staying in one place for very long. Travel was not easy for our family, especially with children [my brother was 6, my sister a little over 2 and me, 8 months]. My parents took us by train from Peking to Tianjing to Shanghai, then to Hong Kong by ship. From there a train took us through Vietnam to Kunmin, Yunan. We lived there for two years, then on to Chongqing, Sichuan where I began school. We were there for about five years. We spent many days a year in the cold, damp, dark and crowded air raid shelter about three miles from our home. That memory is still fresh in my mind after some sixty years.
Bombing was part of my life from birth. It took me a long time to get over that. During that time the Chinese Nationalist army was poorly equipped. The Japanese planes flew very low to drop the bombs, so they seldom missed the target. Countless people were killed; homes and buildings were destroyed, and many survivors were homeless. We could often see the Japanese flag very clearly on the planes. Even after the allied victory was won in 1945, whenever I heard airplanes, my face would pale and my body would stiffen with fright. From these experiences, I hated the Japanese, every single one of them. I wanted to avenge China some day. This little devil of nationalism was in me that had made me behave in a completely irrational way.
This hatred for imperialist aggression and Japanese aggressors was not something new in our family. It had been in my mother’s family for many, many years. Her father grew up during the period when the eight imperialist powers were trying to split China, each country to get the best parts. The Qing Dynasty was too weak to say no and to protect its citizens. People felt hopeless, humiliated and insulted. At that time my grandfather was recruited into the navy by some patriotic naval generals who wanted to take back all concessions and build a strong naval force to keep the country strong and intact. My grandfather was a skilled gunner. But during the first Sino-Japanese war in 1894, his best friend was killed and his battleship sunk. He had to swim about twenty miles to safety. He was determined to drive away the invaders and avenge his best friend and all the sailors who had died in battle. He worked tirelessly and was promoted to president of the naval academy in Yantai, Shandong, where my mother spent her early childhood.
Here I will share something about my mother, who is my role model. Her name is Xie Wanying, born in 1900 and died in 1999. Her pen name is Bing Xin. Her father was open-minded and democratic, and her mother was well-educated and gender sensitive. When my mother was young, she always wore a black naval officer’s uniform. She wore nothing colorful until she was eleven years old. She was her father’s pet. Her feet were not bound and her ears were not pierced. She had a thirst for knowledge. She could read classics when she was five and began composing poems and writing novels when she was eight or nine. She graduated from a Christian girls’ school in Peking with honors and went to the Medical Department of Yanjing University. The May Fourth, 1919 Students’ Democratic Movement changed her dream of becoming a doctor to save her mother as well as mankind. Even though China was one of the victorious nations after World War One, many imperialist nations plundered China. Lack of resistance to this humiliation caused Chinese students to show their protest and their hope for democracy by demonstrating in the streets. This occurred on May 4th, 1919, the first students’ democratic movement in China.
My mother was then secretary of the Students’ Union and played an active part in the publicity work for the Beijing Federation of Women Students. During the May 4th uprising, many students were arrested and unfairly tried. She wrote articles to support the students and lawyers who demanded social justice for students and expose the warlord government with vernacular Chinese instead of classic Chinese. She then contributed stories to the newspaper Chenbao (Morning Paper). Readers liked her stories and soon she became famous. After graduating from Yanjing University in 1923 with a Bachelor’s Degree, Phi-Beta-Kappa, she went to the United States to further her studies in literature at Wellesley College. There she made friends with women from Japan and other countries. She finished her postgraduate study with a Master’s Degree in 1926 and returned to China to teach Chinese Literature at Yanjing University, a post she held until 1936. She is considered a distinguished contemporary writer, poet, translator, social activist and conscience of China. She was also a feminist. When I was a little girl, she told me: you are a human being before you are a girl. My mother was the first female lecturer at Tokyo University from 1947 to 1948, teaching Chinese literature. When she was leaving that post, the President of the university hosted a party for her. When he asked her what was her wish, she said that she hoped there would be more female teachers.
The period between 1945 and 1947 was the most difficult years for the Japanese people. Everything was rationed; food was scarce; stomachs were often empty; clothing was thin; homes were cramped and cold. Yet all the schools were open! Children went to school in shorts in deep winter, shivering, carrying their own stools. Most classes were held in the open air; there were no classroom buildings, no classrooms. Despite the difficulties, everyone was always smiling. Sometimes I would stand far away, watching them play baseball, jump rope, screaming and laughing together. They were definitely enjoying themselves. I admired their spirit and wanted to join them. Yet a little devil inside me told me it would be wrong to do that. I should hate all Japanese, I should refuse to learn the Japanese language or play with Japanese children. I thought being Chinese, how could I ever forget what the Japanese had done to us! Not hating them would mean betrayal of my country and my people. Not hating them would mean not being patriotic.
As soon as we settled down, mother began looking for Wellesley alumnae. Very soon she found three and set up a Thursday lunch. Our cook knew that he was not only to prepare enough food for the Thursday lunch, but also extra for the guests to take home for their families. Being a diplomat, my father had a very busy schedule. Yet whenever he had time, he would join them, because he also wanted to learn about the lives and suffering of the Japanese people during and after the war. I heard their stories and shed tears with them. I liked them because they were my mother’s friends; I called them aunties. I even went with my parents to visit them and played with their children and grandchildren. But I looked at this as a special, separate case, different from being friendly to the Japanese I hated.
In the spring of 1947, my parents were given a book with many pictures, entitled “Crimes Committed by the Japanese Militarists.” There were pictures of the Nanking Massacre and pictures of killing, slaughtering, and plundering by the Japanese. There were pictures of very young girls and women being raped and killed; men, young and old, being slaughtered. There was one Japanese officer eating the 97th heart of a Chinese he had just killed! I went over each of the pictures carefully and became furious. Hatred welled from my heart into my throat. Tears came to my eyes. I wanted to do something for the dead, as I am a verb, an active verb. I shared the book with my playmates, six boys. I was the ring leader. We discussed what we should do, and finally decided to bike out every day to scare away the Japanese children after we did our homework. When my Mother found out what I was doing, she was very angry. I had never seen her like that. She said: “How could you have done that? Don’t you know the Japanese people also suffered during the war? Haven’t you heard the stories told by your Japanese aunts about their lives during the war and now? Those who were against the war were called traitors and were purged. Their children also suffered. Even now they are still suffering. We can talk about how our people suffered during the war and get sympathy from others, but our Japanese friends who love peace and hate war couldn’t talk about it. It was cruel, unjustifiable, and unreasonable for you to do that. Both the people of Japan and China suffered in the wars. The Japanese people were our friends. They never wanted the war. It was only the Japanese militarists who had invaded China and killed so many Chinese.” What my mother said was correct. I learned a very hard lesson.
Recently one of our friends translated an interview with my mother done in the spring of 1947. My mother said: “During the long years of war, we could talk about what was in our mind. Yet those Japanese who loved peace and hated war couldn’t talk about what they thought. They must have felt awful. But they didn’t have to say ‘We are sorry.’ It is those who instigated the war who should take the blame.” I learned that we should always draw a line between the government and its people, because no government in this world can represent its people one hundred percent. History provides many examples of this distinction..
I will never forget that lesson. I am very lucky to have parents who were such good role models, teaching me, observing me, guiding me and helping me to gradually acquire this global perspective. Now I think we in Asia should face history and facts, take our responsibility as global citizens, learn from our past experiences, carefully choose our common issues and work together to solve problems and gradually bridge our differences. So, it is very important and significant to have a meeting at this time.
We know our global problems are faced by all nations. No single country could cope with them alone. But to solve our common problems, we need to have a peaceful environment. We need to respect the rule of law and build trust. To make changes, we need to have a balanced development model, taking into account environmental protection and social equality. Without careful planning from the start, we will definitely face more issues and problems.
Now I would like to move on to the specific issues and problems I think China faces. In 1979 China changed its policies from that of class struggle to economic development and from a planned economy to a market economy. People now enjoy more of the rights clearly stated in the Chinese Constitution. People’s livelihood has improved, more investment has gone into our basic infrastructure, production has gone up and government has become more responsive to the needs and demands of the people. Unfortunately, growth and progress has not been shared equally. There has been great disparity between the rural and urban, east coast and the vast western area, and between the rich and the poor. A majority of citizens live in the rural areas, especially women. Those who have migrated into cities and the unemployed urban poor also face special challenges.
China faces many problems and issues. As an individual, what should I do? I will share with you why I am doing what I am doing. The first time I visited Huining, Gansu Province, was in the summer of 1990 as a Gender Specialist for a CIDA project. The natural conditions were harsh, there was little or no infrastructure, water was scarce, and people were hungry. I was absolutely flabbergasted. After all these years what has the government done for the people in the western part of China?! We must have policies which enable all citizens to share in the economic growth. Those policies have to be inclusive and detailed. That trip empowered me to act as a responsible citizen. Coming from an elite family like mine, poverty seemed so abstract. I saw it only in plays and films. Every scene of poverty has now stuck in my mind. It will live forever with me and urge me to go on fighting and working for all who are less fortunate than I.
I have served as a democratically elected People’s Deputy since 1984, serving my seventh term at the district level and my fourth term at the municipal level. I am the first Deputy in China to study and implement the Chinese Constitution to protect the rights of my constituents, the first to set aside every Tuesday afternoon to meet and listen to the needs, demands and complaints of my constituents and the first to urge constituents to watch over my behavior and conduct and regularly report to them. I believe in the rule of law, democracy, responsibility, accountability and transparency. I think it is imperative to change the system, the structure and mechanism of China according to the Chinese Constitution so that every single citizen is able not only to participate in reform but is also able to share gains and bear the losses. Only in this way can China make greater progress and develop in a more balanced way. Being a Deputy to the Haidian and Beijing Municipal People’s Congresses, I have been fighting for better laws, policies, and regulations with the Constitution and I hold the government at the two levels accountable as I know no rights in this world are granted, given or automatic.
I am also involved in NGO activities. Now I will talk about my organization, the Beijing Cultural Development Center for Rural Women. Our mission is to empower rural and migrant women, to change their mindsets and help them to become change makers themselves, advancing women’s human rights. China has the largest rural female population in the world. Many of them cannot read or write. This limitation, combined with thick layers of feudal tradition, make a formidable obstacle to attaining goals related to improving their quality of life. Finding ways to provide services for women (especially rural women) regarding general education, legal education, health, employment, social and public services has become our first priority. We must help rural women become literate! We set the stage by emphasizing to women that they are human beings first and women second. Women should not be constrained by stereotyped gender roles and longstanding traditions.
Changing mindsets is our priority. We offer training courses on gender, citizenship, democracy, political participation, and equality. We use participatory methodology in all our training, which helps build the foundation for a democratic approach to our society. Participants become independent and self-reliant, and they begin to voice their needs and demands. We do recognize that it is a new Long March for us, especially since we have the largest female population in the world with strong traditions. It will be one step at a time, and we need to have a down-to-earth work style, always ready to listen, learn, and offer our love to the women we serve. Like a well-nourished seed, our organization has grown from three women in 1993 to the current 36 women and men. Our Center for Rural Women manages projects: literacy, suicide intervention, Water Users’ Association Training, Women’s Political Participation, Economic Startups, training Women’s Federation officials, and coordinating with the Practical Skills Training Center for Rural Women set up in 1998. Our target groups are grassroots women, women leaders at village, township, and county levels, as well as girls who have dropped out of junior high due to poverty. Our courses are designed to tap their potential, increase their self-esteem, and help them become responsible citizens and change agents. We also offer skill building in the use of computers, hairdressing, sewing, and waitress and domestic work. This helps girls between 16 and 20 find employment after training if they want to stay in cities. When they are earning money and feeling empowered, they are able to help their families get out of poverty and help their siblings to continue their education or start businesses themselves. We have trained close to 6,000 women and girls since 1999.
The Migrant Women’s Club was established in April of 1996, with the purpose of empowering migrant women from different parts of China who come to Beijing to look for employment. They have come to better themselves. We offer lectures on the Constitution, Labor Law, Marriage and Family Law, Gender and Citizenship, social values, and city life. We also organize them in support groups. To meet their needs, we set up a “Legal Aid Group” in 2002 and “Emergency Relief Fund for Migrant Women” in 2003 to follow proper legal process for these women to protect their rights and interests. From their requests, we added classes in Chinese, Mathematics, computer literacy and English to help them improve their job possibilities.
Additionally, we publish books to communicate our goals to a wider audience, and to share success stories to inspire those who are uncertain. We have three sets of textbooks for literacy classes as well as books directed toward specific groups of girls and women, such as “ Rural Women and Development in China,” “The Chinese Registration System and Migrant Women,” “ Basic Readers for Teenage Girls in Rural Areas,” “Manual for Preventing Rural Women’s Suicide.”
Every single woman is a seed. Like seeds, they grow and form circles. We feel the circle represents the ideal management of our organization because in a circle no one is in charge. Our readers and project participants find our training useful and tell us their lives have changed.
At our five-day workshop on Suicide Intervention, forty people attended. Seventeen of them had attempted suicide in 2004. Six women from Donghao Village, Qinglong County, Hebei Province, went home changed women. They acquired a new perspective and learned ways to deal with frustration. The villagers told us, “You have not only changed six people but six families and a village of 600!” This domino effect has given us increased confidence and resolve.
There are many stories like these. A seed has become circles. People are changing, families are changing and communities are changing. We begin to see that our goals are attainable. There is much to be done; this we know.
I am enthusiastic about the goal of this symposium - the goal of creating a human security network to address our common problems. I believe that such a network of human beings dedicated to working together will not only help in solving problems, but it will also help to prevent problems. Current global issues require such networks because no one nation or group can address them alone. I look forward to participating in this endeavor. I believe we can make a significant contribution to the planet by cooperating in this way.
We believe in every seed. We know that if a seed is strong and healthy, it will send its roots deeper into the soil to absorb nourishment, it will have a strong stem to stand straight, to blossom, to bear flowers or fruits and to produce good seeds. Seeds grow and form circles. I am one seed in a circle, the circle of sharing, equality, empowerment, and solidarity. We are both a seed and a circle, because only seeds of sharing can form circles. Every global citizen is a seed, and we form circles of peace, friendship equality, and development to make this world a better place for us and for the generations to come.
Thank you. That was a very dynamic presentation and in line with the topic. For the Japanese, what steps we should take in addressing the past, you gave us some ideas. We have time for a few questions.
Q. Thankyou for a very inspiring speech. I hope that one day I can be an academic like you who can put her ideas into practice, and not just theorise. When you help women’s rights, you help not just one women but a whole family. People who fight for women often fight for the rights of different ethnic groups, for human rights. Ask about Tibet. China experienced oppression from Japan and so understands this. So why does China have to occupy and oppress Tibet.
A. I live on the campus of the Central Uni. For ethnic groups. I know some Tibetans there, and some people have different views. I think that members of ethnic groups should have the same rights as all others, as the Han. And when I was at Stamford, people asked me why there had been temples destroyed in Tibet. I said that not only in Tibet, but all over china temples and churches were destroyed. Tibet has always been part of China…
Q. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think that were times in the past when Tibet was independent.
Q. I think that to have peace in North Asia, we need to get rid of the North Korean dictator and china needs to be democratized. I am not Chinese, but what can I do to help democratize it, what can be done
A. I am a People’s deputy I fit the bill as a women, 40’s, a teacher and not a party member, so I was elected. In 1989 I was active with the student movements and so people tried to stop my re-election that year, but the people know what they wanted and know their rights, and so I was re-elected. I think china is gradually changing. I like to use the analogy of, if it rains dogs and cats, the top soil, the fertile soil will be washed away. But if it rains a steady drizzle, then this will be good and there will be a good harvest. So we need to work for gradual change. And china is changing. There are many people (officials) who are opposed and many who support change, and we have to work for this not just talk, but fight for it.
We would now like to begin Session 2.
“How should we solve and mitigate these threats?”
I will be the moderator. My name is Kuroda Kazuo from GSAPS. Let me introduce the panelists. Ambassador Tsuruoka Koji from MOFA, counsellor in charge of global issues and is also a professor at GRIPS. A key player at MOFA in addressing human security issue as main pillar of ODA.
Next is Professor Wang Ming, from QingHua University in China. Has PH.D from Nagoya Uni., and he established the school on NGO’s in China and is the expert.
Ako Tomoko from Himeji Dokyo University. She is the Assistant Professor in the Foreign Languages Dept. and knowledgeable about rural conditions in China, having done extensive field studies there.
Soh Changrok, from Korea Uni. Dean and Professor at the Graduate School if International Studies and the expert in an International Studies.
Chantana Wungaeo from Chulalongkorn Uni. in Thailand. Along with her husband she is very active in practical matters as well as research within the realm of human security. In October will have international conference on this.
I would like ask Amb. Tsuruoka to start.
I am Director General for Global Issues. I am sitting here as a representative of the Government of Japan, but I am not sitting here to advocate the policies of the Jap government. What I will say will be quite different to the government’s policies, and many people may disagree, so I look forward to a candid and active discussion.
Listening to the speech of Dr. Wu, I am very impressed and moved by her speech. She has undergone a lot of hardship but maintained a clear vision and she is actually practicing Human security. I would like to express my deepest regret and thank her for coming all the way as well as sharing with us her personal experiences.
The approach and principal ideas of the government of Japan regarding Human Security. I would like to list what has been done by Japan. Prof Kuroda said that Human Security has been one of the guiding principles for ODA of Japan. I wouldn’t say that it should be the basic vision, not the only principle, but it should be one of how Japan should deal with the international community.
After 20 years of discussion, there is no clear-cut definition of Human Security. Partly this is intentional. No one or country has patent on Human Security and should be developed through working together. Things still fluid, should incorporate everyone’s input before we come to a final definition.
What is Japan is doing: Human Security concept discussed in international society for some time private intellectuals are expected to refine it. The Commission on Human Security was organized and it issued a report. Co-chairs are the President of JICA (Ogata Sadako, former UNHCR) and the President of Trinity College Cambridge, Dr. Amartya Sen. Reason I refer to this commission is that it was funded by Japanese government but not controlled by us The Commission said: Human Security is protection of human life and realization of the freedom and potential of all people. Protection of all people and communities and also empowerment is needed.
In the ODA charter there is reference to Human Security, especially in relation to development assistance.
Nature of threats to people is changing. Emergence of unconventional threats. Charter says that contributing to the capacity building of people to face these should be guiding principle.
Ms. Ogata set out 7 principles for Human Security within JICA.
This elaborates on the above principle. (See slides for points. Cf. JICA: 人間の安全保障の「7つの視点」)
How is Asia perceived within this whole context?
Before looking at Asia, I will describe basic perspectives on Human Security: 1. To ensure that people can fulfill their human potential and be able to translate that into actual community results. This means we must invest into people, the community. This capacity building must be to help economic development. We must ensure that this development doesn’t lead to brain drain. This is contrary to the original purpose of investment. We have to make sure the policies are in place to stop this when we deal with people. Need mechanism in client state to allow people to realize their potential. The entry point is individuals, but role of states is still important. Equity and rule of law are important. Without these principles, investment would not lead into economic and social development. Conditionality is a term often used to describe the situation where unless these institutions are built, aid will not be provided. This is being modified but still strong tendency to have conditionality in Development Assistance. Is this effective? Or is it better to work together to establish systems, to work with the client state. We want to co-build and co-work, progressing together. Unless there is a mechanism for participation, those who are not involved will to be so. We can present options, and they can request help, assistance, but the final decisions must be made by the people themselves.
In the case of Asia which is diverse ethnically, religiously and culturally. Diversity is a source of affluence, and decreasing this diversity would not enrich country. Need to share idea of Human Security to create humane society.
Another important facet of diversity is the relevant actors: Governments, regions, NGO’s, multi-nationals etc. Their position, quality and status are changing and need to strengthen these networks to promote Human Security.
(Skips section to save time.)
Some examples of international documents referencing Human Security.
In 2005, UN documents referenced Human Security of the first time.
Funding from Human Security funds from the Un and capacity-building was provided for ex-soldiers in East Timor, water purification in Bangladesh (to remove arsenic from well-water) and also Sri Lanka. Amount is about 30,000 (denomination unclear) but the recipients are NGO’s, not governments. If anyone has any eligible projects, the Japanese government has mechanism to fund those projects, especially in the area of primary care and primary education.
This was a brief and general presentation. Questions please. Thank you
Human Security is concept that is important not just for Japanese government’s policy on Official Development Aid, but an important aspect and vision in terms of Japan’s relationship with the international community. This is still evolving and we need to consider various diversities.
My name is Wang Ming, from the NGO institute at QingHua University in Beijing. I am honoured and I thank the organizers.
This afternoon I will mainly speak about what is happening in AIDS and HIV in China (based on a survey from last year) to address the question of what NGO’s can do to alleviate this issue. I will talk about three things:
1. AIDS in China
1985 First AIDS case reported in Shangahi.
10 years later it was in most parts of China.
1998 In every province.
5 cases initially in 1985, but by 1994, close to 30,000 cases and in 2006, there were 180,000 cases.
See regional distribution on slide. Yunnan, Henan and the Guang Xizhuang (広西壮族自治区) Autonomous Region are the worst affected.
There has been an explosion in money spent on AIDS work by the Government.
IN 1985 the special budget was only 20 million RMB, but last year 2 billion RMB was appropriated. Also lots of funds from overseas NGO’s.
Initially no NGO activities, but in the last 5 years many NGO’s dealing with AIDS in China, both foreign and GONGO (Government Support NGO) as well as grassroot NGO’S.
Many of the infected are still hiding. This slide shows the basic situation. AIDS issue is emerging a major social problem. I will show the results of our survey from last year from 13 provinces. This was done by questionnaire aimed at NGO’s. Most are not registered so it is hard to locate them.
Here we can see the geographic distribution and we can see the infected are concentrated in certain areas, and we did our surveys in those areas. Activities include education, advocacy and service. Survey looked at services provided to the infected and those who are high-risk.
Most of NGO’s are at the province level. Community level NGO activities are limited, as are national-level activities.
There are currently 2 ways to register as an NGO: NPO registration and corporate registration. NPO registration is for social and NPO groups, and account for one third of NGO’s. Over 50% of NGO’s are not registered and the rest are registered as corporate bodies.
Depend on overseas funding. Most NGO’s have limited budgets and human resources.
Annual average expenses per NGO is 50,000 RMB. Average education level is graduate of Junior High School.
3 types of NGO in terms of funding, skills and legality: Overseas have the best status), GONGO (have some funding) and grassroots level which are suffering the most. .
What kind of approach is needed to make NGO’S more effective:
I hope this issue is resolvable. Thank you
I will speak about “Community Memory in Rural China”
I teach at uni in Japan, but used to work in Beijing for 3 years. Along with Dr. Wu Qing, visiting rural China on Human Security fund. I would like to approach Human Security from rural activities.
I would like to talk about the term “community memory.” The talk this morning about capitalism and various systems, individuals get swept aside. When we think about how people interact with society and I think in this that Community memory is a key term.
What is community memory? For example religious activities and daily life activites. People involved in these activities hold the community memory. The production of everyday items is also part of this.
To share the community memory, these play an important role (though sometimes a negative one) Now we can share these through the internet.
How does community memory shape the public sphere?
Shows slide about societal development.
A. Memory development can have a positive or negative effect. When people participate positively, that will bring positive effects and memories.
B. There can also be negative impacts. During wartime, rights are tramples and thought is controlled, and so memory is negative.
C. Rural villages in China lack community memory. These can’t be created and accumulated. People lose solidarity.
Social change in China and effect on community memory.
Before modernization, family culture very important in Chinese culture. Had negative side like gender disparity or large families, but there were roles for all family members. After 1949 with the introduction of communal farming, the state plays a more important role in rural China, people depend upon the state, physically and spiritually. Post economic liberalisation, there has been big changes. Before everything was done at the group level but now with the dissolutions of collectives and communes, there is a vacuum and there are a lot of problems. Embezzlement of communal funds.
For past four years have done research in Hubei, which is a middle-level province, not the poorest.
Example of county in Hubei Province: Public money is misused. Japanese ODA is misused and pocketed by individuals. There is a very high suicide rate amongst the elderly, who feel that they lack a place to live, a place in society. One-child policy successful. But the village depopulates as people move to larger towns, cities, no one wants to protect land. Families disintegrating, with divorce rate high.
For example, people can get money to build houses but no-one takes this up as people want to live in larger towns. No strong desire to protect their own land. Government is weak. Infrastructure is not kept up. Agricultural irrigation systems are not maintained. Many villages are in deficit, in debt, due to corruption and avoidance of tax payments by locals.
The collective irrigation pond has been damaged and people steal water, do not use resources collectively. People damage roads and collective paddy walls to protect themselves.
The Joint irrigation attempted not successful. People stole goods and damaged the infrastructure.
Next year set up elderly people centre in abandoned building to discuss situation and solutions. Not a poverty alleviation project, but many people come to this centre. Here people discuss how to alleviate problems in the village, get together.
Autonomous activities had begun at the centre but village authorities try to take over the building, interfere in the activities after it had become successful.
This is a small-scale project but important as is promotes community memory. Maybe this can be done through the use of the media, events and education to promote memories.
“Enhancing Human Security in N. Korea: A Multilateral Approach”
Prof. Yang this morning mentioned the DPRK Human Rights issues.
DPRK Human Rights issue is Human Security issue in Asia. This problem creates pernicious problem not just for ROK, DRPK but for all Asian countries.
Individual countries are concerned about Human Rights in the DPRK, but individual efforts have not been successful. We need an Asian Human Rights regime to solve problem, but can’t be established just by states, but needs multilateral, , multi-level actors. The role of NGO’s and civil society participation is very important. Must make a collaborative network.
I will skip definition of Human Security as it is written in my speech.
A realistic and tangible plan, to resolve the threat posed by North Korea, is to establish a regional human rights regime in East Asia and encourage a collaborative network to promote enhancement of human rights in East Asia. The role of academic intellectuals in this effort is to help develop a meta-governance system that is able to coordinate the multiple level actors within the East Asian regime. Meta-governance is needed to guide the individual acts of multilateral actors. Need this “meta-governance” for co-ordination.
Since the 1990s, North Korea has displayed that it understands the importance of international human rights norms by selectively joining several international human rights treaties and forums, permitting contacts from numerous international organizations and NGOs, and continually establishing, amending and supplementing its laws with human rights oriented elements.
For example, Amnesty International was permitted to visit North Korea in April and May 1995. North Korea also consented to exploratory talks with the EU on human rights issues and initiated the first round of talks in June 2001. However, despite the outstanding progress in the international efforts for human rights protection, to the outside world there has been little improvement in the condition of human rights in North Korea.
There have been severe human rights violations by the military and security agencies in North Korea. Furthermore, the serious food-shortage problem has led to massive starvation. The failure of agricultural policies and famine during the 1995~1997 aggravated the food shortage problems, and it is reported that about 1~2 million people, which is 10% of the total population, died of malnutrition from food shortage or other related diseases. In a 2004 report UNICEF and WFP research surveyed 4800 children under 6 years of age and found that 23% were underweight, 37% suffering from malnutrition, and 7% were in the state of extreme malnutrition.
The number of North Korean civilians fleeing to other countries for survival is estimated between 100,000 and 400,000. This number reflects the state of conditions in North Korea as the severe state of human rights violations must have been a source of motivation for the refugees to forgo the risk of defection, which is still penalized severely. Although the refugees are an important source of information on conditions within North Korea, they also present a direct threat to human security in the region because they can create trans-border health problems, generate instability, and contribute to making a confrontational atmosphere.
North Korea’s human rights problems have been caused from within, which means they are structural and systematic problems, but such internal origins cannot be eliminated without external efforts. Without a systematic resolution to the problems, North Korea’s human rights problems can cause pernicious problems not only to South Korea but also to other East Asian countries.
Therefore, there is a strong need to enhance human security in North Korea with a multilateral approach and to establish a regional human rights regime and a collaborative network connecting related actors for efficient operation of the regime.
About 90 regional and subject-oriented international human rights regimes currently exist around the world. For example, the creation of regional human rights regime in Europe, as embodied in Helinski system, has contributed to the stability and peace in the post-cold war Europe, and the human rights regime in South America has also contributed to political stability and peace as well as substantial improvement of human rights in the region. Even Africa has struggled to establish a regional human rights regime.
However, because of different interpretations of the concept of universal human rights among states and authoritarian tradition in the region, no international human rights regime currently exists in the East Asian region.
Considering the severity of the human rights violations in North Korea and the threats posed to the security concerns of East Asia and world peace, North Korea’s human rights issue is a significant starting point for the realization and embodiment of a human rights regime in Asia.
The closed nature of the society and insufficient external intervention along with the absence of a regional human rights regime in East Asia are threatening the human security of the international society.
Therefore, to ultimately resolve the problematic condition of human rights and also to enhance human security in North Korea, it is necessary to understand the global phenomenon of development of human rights regimes and seek a multilateral and multi-layered resolution to establish a human rights regime within East Asia.
The next section was about the approaches of individuals states, but Professor Yang explained this morning about the approach of the U.S., of Japan and of South Korea.
The US passed the North Korean Human Rights Law and accepted first North Korean refuges last year, but efforts have not had much respect as is seen as mostly political. Japan mainly concentrating on kidnapped Japanese
Efforts have been made by a variety of actors at governmental, inter-governmental, and non-governmental levels in the movement to enhance human security, but actors of each level have faced limitations. Further efforts should be devoted to promote discussions on human security and to form a human rights regime with a multilateral approach.
In order to deal with the problem form a multilateral approach, it is necessary to examine the approaches at different levels- first, the role of the United Nations; second, the Track I approach that emphasizes inter-governmental relations; third, the Track II approach that emphasizes unofficial diplomacy conducted outside the official government apparatus; fourth, the Track III approach that puts the role of NGOs at the center.
NGO’s are important because many Asian states have their own Human Rights problems and abuses.
Since its foundation in 1945, human rights has been one of the UN’s main concerns and it has played an important role in preaching the importance of human rights to the international community and enhancing it.
However, despite the efforts on behalf of the UN, it has limitations in monitoring and enforcement.
Recently, in November 2006, the UN third committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural) approved a measure which would have the General Assembly urge North Korea’s government to respect fully all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to grant full, free and the unimpeded access to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the country.
The North Korea representative said that the document would be regarded as unauthentic by his delegation and resolutely opposed and rejected the resolution, which he deemed a ‘political plot of the Unites States and its satellite countries, as well as an illegal document to debase his country’s legal sovereignty. There exists the difficulty of enforcing substantive improvement and since the UN is a multipurpose organization, many considerations in addition to the human rights record have to be taken into account in deciding what to do about the errant behavior of a member state.
Second, examples of Track I efforts include ASEAN, ASEAN+3, AFR, which are the products of discussions from various dimensions for the intra-regional, inter-governmental cooperation as the need for regional cooperation in East Asia has emerged. These organizations all present discussions on human rights and human security as important issues, but they have not actually been adopted as important agendas. There also exist difficulties in holding substantive discussions on the intra-governmental level because a considerable number of East Asian states are not entirely free from human rights problems themselves.
The CSCAP (Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific), the EAVG (East Asia Vision Group) can be identified as Track? approaches that emphasize unofficial diplomacy conducted outside the official government apparatus.
More important than the aforementioned, is the role of the NGOs. Emphasizing the active role of the NGOs, Track III can work in conjunction with international organizations and governments. It also has the advantage of being able to provide a new way of thinking for resolving problems.
Amnesty International, the International League of Human Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Doctors without Borders, International Commission of Jurists, and Human Rights Watch are examples of human rights NGOs.
Amnesty international reports have been widely used by international media and recognized as a reliable standard for evaluating human rights observance in many international rights discussions. NGOs have worked to inform the UN of specific human rights violations and have helped drafting declarations and treaties. NGOs also introduce new human rights norms and regulations to human rights regimes. In numerous ways, NGOs have provided a first step towards overcoming the limits of the state centric regime theory and developing a regional human rights regime.
It is evident that a collaboration of these multilateral actors efforts is necessary in order to lessen human security threats, but the problem is the fact that a collaboration of these multiple actors is difficult to achieve.
The solution lies with understanding the need for governance. With the advent of globalization, the traditional supreme power that was held by the state actor has weakened and shifted to various non-state actors.
Traditionally, governance was based on a strict hierarchy with a hegemonic state in control. With the emergence of NGOs and other non-state actors, governance has transformed into a horizontal self autonomous system.
The roles of both the nation states and the non-state actors have been proven to be critical in enhancing human security. These diverse actors have combined together into a complex network, and a new form of governance, meta-governance, has developed to guide the performance of individual actors within the network.
In the case of the North Korean human security threats that are menacing East Asia, establishing a human rights regime in East Asia will benefit the community. It is important to note though that bringing together multilateral actors into a single regime is difficult. An appropriate approach is for academic intellectuals of the region to coordinate the relationships between not only the multilateral countries in the region, but also the multilayered actors involved in enforcing human security.
Thank you and I would like to congratulate GSAPS and Prof. Amako on pushing forward the idea of Asian community. Now we have new word ? Asian Human Community (AHC).
I will not speak on specific case. I work on the problem of violence in S. Thailand but I will not talk on that unless there is a question.
I like to talk about my position within the idea of establishing the AHC. We all want to share the dream of Prof. Amako, but AHC is only mean to create a better Asia. We want a better society and we believe that the existing regional integration which is based on economics and security is not compatible with people’s life and livelihood. Must look for a new overarching framework and the AHC seems to be a new framework that can cover all aspects of people’s livelihood.
I have three suggestions:
The new, emerging threats are interrelated. National disasters (maybe resulting from climate change) and may exacerbate the problem of poverty. We can discuss the relation between Human Rights violation and economic and environmental injustice.
State security (war on terrorism) bears on the problem on Human Security deprivation, is not in isolation, but related to everyday life. Problem is cross-border, trans-national. Hard for any one country to solve in isolation. Must work on mutual, common ground. Most action is not systematic, but more reaction than action.
Despite the many initiatives we (Thailand and others) are still operating in framework of traditional security- the national interest. Propose 3 steps for this, whilst recognizing that Human Security is in the making, not finalized.
1. Must change mindset. For example, re-occuring violence in South Thailand show that state security framework not working. (Many problems: extrajudicial killings and rape, emergency decrees etc) Forgot about justice, political representation, diversty, economic justice. The Thai interim government (from the coup d’etat) want to use non-violent, non-military approach, but all the state apparatus still operating within the old security framework. We need to redefine security. Show that state security has little to do with Human Security. Linked, but not the same. Many died on 9/11, but many have died from hunger, homelessness, HIV, the Tsunami and climate change. We are facing new, serious threats. Need to redefine security, we need a language to describe how things affect human lives.
2. Need policy innovation. Some instances of people getting together to talk at the regional level. but not strong at national level. ie. Mekong region anti-trafficking efforts are supra-national. Regional links, not so much at the inter-government level.
3. We need to create social learning, nurture social capital. One of them most important aspects.
Important factors of all three steps are knowledge and political space at the national and regional level.
Not just Human Security, but AHC, and Human Security in AHC.
Q1. From Sato Hitomi, Graduate of GSAPS.
Regarding NGO’s and AIDS-HIV. Prof. Wang, you said that government does not trust NGO’s. What needs to be done to alleviate this distrust.
Q2. Teaching at Private Uni in Tokyo, but here today as a private citizen.
Question to Amb. Tsuruoka. A question regarding Japanese Policy on cooperation and aid for Primary Health care and education. Japanese government gives with one hand and Japanese businesses take away with the other hand. Need for closer government supervision and regulation of certain areas. For example, there is a Human Security issue in the large consumption of Asian timber by Japan. I have worked for a Japanese general trading company (総合商社) and large Japanese companies may not be involved in illegal activities, they are sometimes involved in dishonest activities,. The tribal people (ie. in Kalimanatan, Papua New Guinea, Laos, Myanmar) are displaced by local businesses and locals lose the places where they live and their livelihood due to the cutting of timber and then sold timber to Japan. What does the Japanese government think of this?
Q3. Bennet Richardson from GSAPS.
Question for Dr. Chantana Wungaeo. You mentioned that there is a need for knowledge and political space in order to move the Human Security agenda forward. One of the key elements of the Human Security paradigm is that it is bottom up rather than top down. I am interested in your opinion of the Japanese government stance on this issue, in that the government is taking an approach that may not be top-down but is facilitative. What is your opinion of governments becoming involved in this debate? And could Amb. Tsuruoka respond to Dr. Chantana Wungaeo’s answer.
Government doesn’t trust NGO’s because:
1. Most aren’t registered (especially in AIDS-HIV field), so government overall doesn’t know what is being done by NGO’s.
2. Also until 2004 government did not recognize that AIDS-HIV problem was that serious. Governments at all levels were forced to recognize size of problem by the media. This is especially a problem of local governments more than central government. Local governments more than the central government distrust NGO’s.
What can be done?
1. The central government recognizes role played by NGO’s and should communicate better with local government, telling them the importance of NGO’s.
2. NGO’s should also try to work and communicate better with the government, to not avoid them but talk and consult. I submitted a report to the government on AIDS-HIV NGO’s as part of the educational process.
3. Government needs to change registration system. Can’t overhaul whole system but can maybe get special measures for AIDS NGO’s. NGO should register and this should be promoted.
First let’s have Dr. Chantana answer the question, followed by Amb. Tsuruoka.
I am not knowledgeable about Japanese society and I would like to focus only on one thing; on the trade polices. I think the ODA and trade policies of Japan do not necessarily go together. So even though the Japanese government which pushed forward the concept of Human Security but I think that the change is going to have to take place in Japan, particularly to integrate Human Security into overall policies such as economic and other aspects of international relations, not only as a tool for ODA to treat recipient countries. I think this has become an issue because Thailand is making an agreement on Free Trade. The Thai people have little knowledge of what is going on and I sure that the Japanese people have little knowledge as well. The agreement is that Thailand will accept industrial waste from Japan for investment and trade. This sounds like a fair trade and exchange, but taking the Human Security approach, this will create an unsustainable relationship in the long run. There will be a lot of problems to be solved later. This is more my question than my answer.
In relation to the issue of trust towards NGO’s, in Thailand, the law is controlled properly by the government. Also, trust can be created in a democratic space and trust is a very important value in a democratic society. Trust will emerge if a country is moving to more democratic space, meaning that expectations of one another will be predictable.
The bigger issue: I fully agree with the proposal to use the Human Security concept to be used not only as principle for ODA but in a larger policy framework. When we look at development of Japan, our principle has been to respect individual development and capacity, individual difference to develop society. This is our experience in Japan and in light of this, when we deal with the international community, the same principle should apply. The Human Security concept has not been finalized, and I welcome the support of everyone in deepening and enhancing this so it can become a basis for cooperation to achieve the common goal of human dignity, satisfaction.
In relation to trade policy with Thailand, I am not aware of this policy regarding hazardous waste being sent to Thailand in exchange for trade and investment. If it is hazardous waste as defined by the Basle convention, to send it overseas would be in contravention of international agreements. Japan does not accept this waste nor do we allow Japanese companies to send it overseas. It will be all regulated and this has to be addressed and dealt with within the Japanese boundaries. There may be violators who go through (sic. around) those regulations and we will have to be very stringent in enforcing the rules, but I would be surprised if we are negotiating with another country to dump waste overseas. The agreement will be subject Japanese parliamentary approval and I don’t believe that the Japanese parliament and government would allow this, would compel the other signatory (Thailand) to accept these terms. I don’t know about the latest stages of the negotiations and there may be some misunderstanding, but I would be surprised and will be happy to look into it. There are certain agreements and requests for Japan to export used products so they can be re-used, recycled and re-invested. If there are decent arrangements, we will do so. For example in the area of ODA, in discussions with Iraq on the issue of ambulances, there was suggestion that Japan send used ambulances to Iraq, but we eventually decided to send new ones. We get requests for export of used materials, but reluctant to do so because quality control is difficult.
About tropical timber, I think the point is well taken if we go back 20-30 years. Very easy to blame Japanese trading houses for buying cheap materials in developing world for cheap housing products. These companies have a facilitating role. It is a business that combines strengths of different countries. Issue of tropical timber is not unique and this is relevant to many of the exports of developing states. Whether they are willing to export a product is primarily the choice of that sovereign state. It is impossible for trading houses to exploit the system and force community or society to export when they don’t want to.
Especially in last 10 years, Japan making big effort to stop illegal logging of tropical timber. The reasoning here is twofold. First, to stop productions of greenhouse gases. Logging will have negative effect on those communities and will have negative effect on greenhouse emissions. Secondly, if this is not well-controlled, it will also destroy the Japanese timber industry. This is expensive in Japan, but Japan is making effort to use Japanese timber. Japan aids the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) which is headquartered in Yokohama. Japan is one on the only countries (exception: Switzerland) from the user side that contributes to this fund.
The ITTO is establishing rules and regulations to control logging that hopefully will be respected. The new timber issue is in Siberian, where the Tundra is disappearing. Japan has asked the Russians to stop this, but the people on the ground, not the Japanese trading houses are cutting down the timber. Please do not blame the wrong culprit or we will never solve the issue.
As moderator, I would have liked to dwell more on these issues in the Asian region but due to my shortcomings, I was not able to do so. Let’s take that up in the next panel.
Thank you to the panelists.
In this symposium, I have selected the guest analysts which I think were perfect. And I think we have very good results with illustrious members of the panel and very frank and candid exchanges. I am very glad of it. However, we have a small audience. It is unfortunate and maybe due to my miscalculation. Actually Waseda is having examination for enrolling students. And those students who commute to Waseda University daily are not here. And other universities in Tokyo are also having enrollment examination. But I have been thinking that maybe some 250 people will be coming to listen to the symposium and I have told many people about this symposium. But unfortunately we only have a small audience despite the fact that we are having a very heated discussion here. Thanks to our guests who have traveled far. I have to apologize as the picture is a little sad. Anyway, for those who are here, I am sure the discussions are very fruitful. For which I am very happy to note and to thank you very much indeed.
Now, this is the final discussion session. The target of this session is that in Asia, there are the refugee issues, the human rights issues, and these pictures were elaborated, but we see that the government or the current administration has a major role to play. That is one aspect of the issue. Another is that the Asian society per se is a civilian society. People are still immature. Maybe it is not appropriate to use the term immature because it is looking from top-down. But each people living and their identity and independence remains an issue. So within that perspective or its backdrop, we often hear and I often question this use of the word intelligentsia, whether it may be questioned. The social role of the intellectuals needs to be taken into consideration. We have many people here with us who are intellectuals from the academia, from the research field, and also the specific areas of concern today and people are having the expertise on those areas. The role of the intelligentsia or the intellectuals needs to be debated at this point. It does not have to be a direct discussion. But we can see via intellectuals, how Asia can be considered or recognized by the intellectuals? That is why we have this panel discussion session here. As to the human security issue, in this context, maybe a little different from the intellectual issue but we would like to take up this issue as well. It is my taste so to speak that we would like to have debate among the panelists as well. Obviously the panelists will be giving their presentation and we will be hearing from the floor, but we would like to have inter-panelist debate as well. So I do hope that the presentations will be shortened a little so that we can have time for the inter-panelist discussion. Thank you, we would now like to start. We start off from Professor Sun Ge. Professor Sun Ge, please.
Firstly I would like to thank Professor Amako for having such a place for exchanging frank and candid ideas. By responding to Professor Amako’s questions, I would like to give you my frank and candid view. I would like to talk about 2 points. Firstly, in this session, it is expected to use the term or to refer to the intellectuals. Who are they, and secondly what are the social roles they can play. To answer the first question, I would say that you may have many different images of intellectuals. As far as my general classification is concerned, I can see that firstly intellectuals are researchers who have the occupation and the intellectual appetite. The second type of intellectuals is limited to a small number of people. Within the guests today, I would say that a small number of people of such nature are included. That is to say that government policies are the capabilities these people have. The third type of intellectuals is those who are looking at things in a critical manner. Particularly in the 60s and particularly in Japan, when there was the struggle related to US-Japan security pact, there has been a golden time for intellectuals. But unfortunately this period is over. And we can see that anyone can become opinion leader. So much so that before the current globalization, the mass society is no longer movable or approachable. You cannot influence them. And another is that there had been mentioning of the 2nd and 3rd roles of the intellectuals. What would happen if that is the question? Then we are looking at the roles of these 2 types of intellectuals in an exaggerated manner. Particularly, the 2nd type of intellectuals is working in the capacity of government advisors. The policy obviously is added on and appreciated by these inputs of these intellectuals. Is this really necessary? This is also related to the understanding of political process. On this point I cannot say anything but in conclusion, I could say that these intellectuals working as advisor cannot become opinion leaders. And in the political process they cannot make any influence. That is to say, we should not exaggerate the critical intellectuals and the role of them is diversified. There are people who go into social activities. While there are others who only give out words, and step forward in that term. In this social positioning, such intellectuals are by the use of their words trying to change and reform the society, and as far as their energy is concerned we need to recognize that. If I say in simple terms, the intellectuals today if we are to use this term, need to be viewed with limitations in mind. Otherwise we may be diverted from the truth and the turmoil of history. That is because we are the safest people. For example with the case of business people, in the East Asian community, when there is change, concurring change must take place as well. Or else there may be effects leading to collapse. But the intellectuals will protect their livelihoods and moving the society with their words is in reality not as easy. So living beside or aside from history may be possible as times. In a time of crisis like today, one way of being safe is to become intellectuals. This is a kind of message on me and a message that is directed to me. So what should we do to commit to the society and also bear responsibility? Obviously, in this time, we can deliberate serious world issues, but that is not equal to stepping into reality. Our true role is not to change the reality but in the production of the reality. We are not driving ourselves into final conclusion. So we can change things by the means of theory and knowledge, while others cannot be changed. So, as to the intellectuals today, we should question what the major question relative to epistemology is and I would like to classify into 2 parts and I would like to discuss with you. The first point, as I have said repeatedly in my paper is that cold war structure has already collapsed in East Asia. What does this signify? We are taking the epistemology of western arena and use it for the understanding of our picture. The Tiananmen struggles, where young students in order to give out their messages, had demonstration, carried the image of Statue of Liberty, has lead to a lot of questions being posed about democracy. Unfortunately, this image is a mistake of the image of the production of intellectuals in china. We are not taking American model simply, or are we? We have heard a lot of human rights issues repeatedly in the meeting today. The taking up of human rights issue is not something that is very clear. For example, when there is question whether there are human rights issues in China - obviously there are. They are serious issues. We do have such issues in China. So starting from human rights issue, can we go into the China or Sino problem? That is not so because human rights issue is not an issue that is standing on its own, but it has historical contexts of which we need to take into consideration. The second process is such that, prier to taking up the Chinese human rights issue, we need to think about who has brought about these issues. Such issues may exist in countries with freedom as well. If we take all these into consideration I would say that human rights issue will have to stand in its historical context, within the social backdrop. With such process or procedure, I do not think there is a way to say what the human rights issue in china is. I would say this is the proper way of putting the issue forward. The cold war thinking is still there. Unless we free ourselves from this thinking, we will not be able to think of ourselves in the Asian context. This is difficult to say without misunderstanding, because the intellectual tradition of objective consideration and analysis is lacking in the East Asia arena. That is, because of the cold war, we in the East Asian, Northeast Asian, and Southeast Asian areas do not have a culture of looking at things objectively. Always we have the fixed value systems, which we utilize. And thinking of priority, the good and bad, we take stance on things. As to the objective analysis and having a custom of doing that, what we need to do is relatively forget the key words that we used to have. That is to say, the key words that we are using to date, in international politics and domestic politics, are mostly assets after the cold war or during the cold war. They are no longer effective in these days. But new keywords are not yet coming out, having not being structured as yet. So within that as a context, the Chinese situation, how to look at that is a question. There are many examples and I do not think I have time to give all the examples. But for example, one is the human rights issue, and also Aids issue, and rural issue in china, all of which is to be looked at from how it was originated. I think such topic of concern is innovative for the Chinese as well. China at the moment is having a drastic change. So within that change, there are the struggle and disputes with have been going on everyday, within which a new balance is being created and the old balance being demolished. I would say that the situation is such that the fixed keyword concept would be difficult to be used to grasp things in that light. So in order to look at china from such perspective, we need to look at it without any evaluation from the perspective of value. That may be the premise of the study. In other words, in the past, when there was a delay, and from the outside world the change instantly into capitalism, we used 2 perspectives, a bipolar way of looking at things. But we need to create an intellectual and analytical custom. So the principles of East Asia are still something that is unknown or unclear I would say. Discovery in that is an issue in which intellectuals with consolidation and with networking could take up as targets of concern. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Professor Sun Ge has presented major issues and very provocative topics. How to recognize the reality and in order to recognize, we need to have new concept of thinking. I would say this is a very important aspect. I do not think that we will have an instantaneous answer, but we need to debate on this.
Next I would like to invite Dr. Kimbeng Phar. And I would like to ask you to speak in relation to what Professor Sun Ge had said. I know it is a tall order.
Professor Sun Ge tried to differentiate the definitions of an intellectual and an intelligentsia. And this reminds me of my time in Malaysia. When I was growing up, I read a lot of books, but I could not make up the distinction between intellectual and intelligentsia. But there was a Malaysian scholar by the name of Dr. Shake Hussein Aladas, who passed away recently, who made the distinction in a very simple manner: Intellectuals are people who think; intelligentsias are people with degrees. What he meant to say was, if you do not have the proper academic credential, in other words you don't have degrees, and so on and so forth, it does not mean you cannot become an intellectual. So in the context of that definition, I would say that everyone here is qualified to be an intellectual. But the issue is what we want to discuss? Or rather, what is the issue that we want to jointly analyze? Before I came to Tokyo, I also did a little bit of research on the kind of dialogs and security conferences that have been held in the region. And I surfed to the website of Japan Center of International Exchange, which is presided by Takashi Yamamoto. In that website, there is a dialog monitor created by the University of York in Canada. In the dialog monitor, it has been documented that in Asia, on average, each year we have about 171 to 172 conferences. So if we would adopt that inventory, what we are doing today is basically coming from the standpoint of a surplus. In other words, there are already a lot of people talking about East Asian Community, even Human Security. Now for people coming from the United Nations background, Human Security is a concept that could be traced to the report of UNDP in 1994. And an extension of the Human Development report that was conceived by the late Pakistani economist Professor Mabuk Uhark. So what we are discussing right now is basically an extension or carryover of what have been around in the region and the world for the last 10 years or even more. I say more because human security has always been an issue that is intuitively understandable to us. In other words, if you feel at threat from your government in any sense, when your government is corrupt or mismanages economic resources, you already know in an intuitive and natural manner that your human security is being compromised. So even though you have United Nations telling us what the concept of Human Security should be, I would like to say that deep down, each and every one of us knows what this concept should be and ought to be, and must be. So in a sense, I am trying to enlarge the concept of human security to everyone in this room. Coming back to the number of dialogs already in the region, no doubt there are already a lot of security conferences throughout Asia Pacific all the way to the University of California in San Diego that is trying to stabilize the situation of the Korean peninsula by having track 2, some call it track 1.75, dialog. I think that was alluded by Professor Chang from the Korean University earlier. In other words, whenever you look at Asia, wherever you look at any crisis point, there are scholars, intellectuals and common people that discuss about security in a very systematic and orderly manner. So what we are doing today is basically an extension, which in a sense compels us to ask ourselves: how do we make our dialog or our meeting today value added and what are we trying to create and take away. So that is the crucial issue that everyone here has to grapple with and to the extent that you feel that your human security is affected by developments in Iraq, Iran, United States, relationship with Japan, so on and so forth. You should also try to think a bit more about human security and how it is affecting you. In addition to that, speaking strictly as an academic, I also realized that some scholars are trying to create a field called Asian International Relations. And what they mean is that the region has become more and more coherent over the last 10 to 15 years. You have the ASEAN way; you have something that could amount to ASEAN charter in future, so on and so forth. And as a result of each, you can specifically look at Asian International Relations in a systematic and coherent manner. Unfortunately, even as more scholars both in Asia and United States look at Asian International Relations in that manner, their focus tend to be very much on the state or the policies and the practices of the state, no so much on the societal implications and changes that are now going on in different parts of Asia. And I think Professor Terrence Gomez has mentioned in our closed workshop yesterday that while we are very good at looking at the positions and policies of the states, we have yet to reach a stage where we can understand how the internal characteristics of different Asian societies are changing or transforming. So that is another issue I suppose the panelists should beginning to look at and seriously consider, because I have been coming back to this Waseda conference for the last few years, and I feel that the emphasis is still on the issues that concerns the state, but not so much on the impact and implications on society. Now why is there a look at the Asian society? I think there is a need because ultimately what we are aiming to construct is East Asian Community. It is not an East Asian Conglomerate of multiple states. Now since we are trying to create East Asian community, wouldn’t it be sensible, logical and morally important for us to look at whether societies can be put together or not. So that is the issue that we need to look at. Now another issue that I want to raise corresponds directly to the paper that I wrote for this conference, from page 83 to 91. For those of you who are not familiar with the role of intellectuals in the region, you will find that in this paper I explained that intellectuals have traditionally had a very significant and influential role in creating Asia. Now most of us come under the assumption or illusion that the states or regimes in Asia are very authoritarian. No doubt, that is the case. You have a lot of governments and regimes that would not give any thoughts about violating human rights and so on and so forth. But if you were to look at the intellectual history of the creation of Asia, you also find that Asian scholars, intellectuals, thinkers so on and so forth have had very influential and powerful role in contributing ideas, languages to how Asia should be. And these issues go as far back as 100 years ago. So what we are doing right now is not entirely new. It is the continuation of the tradition of reflection and joint thinking that has been taking place over the last century. In that particular context, it is also possible to look at the contribution and role of Japan. Because through the contributions and works of the likes of Dr. Saburo Okita for instance, or Ippei Yamazawa, who is now the president of International University of Japan in Niigata, and thinkers like them, Japan has had a very significant contribution to the formation of Asia. And from the level of track 1, the official track, Japanese foreign ministers and decision makers also have had a very influential and meaningful contribution. Former foreign ministers like Taro Nagayama and Kiichi Niyazawa, or Direct General in Gaimusyo such as Ikyo Sato for instance had a very useful contribution because they were the ones who influence ASEAN in converting the post-ministerial dialog in 1992 into something that can cater and server the interest of the region at large. Hence, in 1994 it was agreed by members of ASEAN to convert the post-ministerial conference from a conference that dealt specifically with economic issues to something that could openly confront and deal with security issues. That process eventually led to the creation of ASEAN Regional Forum. And ASEAN Regional Forum as you know is inclusive enough to include North Korea too. So in that sense Japan has had a very influential and helpful contribution to the formation of East Asia. Asian regional integration has proceeded primarily on the basis of think tanks, semi-governmental research institutes, occasionally blue ribbon commissions like East Asian Study Group or East Asian Eminent Persons Group. That is why we have basically relied on these bodies to pave the way, to show the direction on how to create East Asia. By and large, we are still at the stage where we are specialized in coming up with ideas and proposals, without an institution or body to implement those resolutions and suggestions. So East Asian community is right now at that stage where you do not suffer from any lack of ideas or any lack of network or structure that can lead the region. But nevertheless we suffer from, because of the tendency of East Asian governments to rely on all these bodies without the need to create this institution, the inability to implement some of these ideas and decisions that have already been laid out. That in a sense summarizes what I want to see. But I also want to go ahead of one of our panelists here Professor Yi. Before I came to the panel I had a discussion with Professor Yi and we both agree that East Asian Community has very strategic implication. And that is an important fact that should be taken away by the audience here, because if you have an East Asian Community that can absorb some of the security and defense mechanisms and functions that exist between the United States and Japan for instance, you would create a regional framework where governments do not have to spend so much money on arms or on organized means of violence. And whenever governments do not have to spend on arms, they can spend on alternative resources. So in that sense East Asian community also has that practical implication. So that is the one of the issues that I hope the audience can take away and reflect more deeply ? whether East Asian Community can absorb or replace the US ? Japan Security Treaty and in what way can that create a generalized system of benefits and incentives for the rest of the people in the region. On that note, thank you very much.
Thank you very much. The roles of intellectuals were explained in the context of today’s intellectuals. You made a positive acknowledgement of the roles to be played by the intellectuals. And at the same time, towards the end you asked how can we come up with new framework to strengthen our collaboration. How we can leverage on our intelligence. I think that was the suggestion made. As Dr. Kimbeng Phar indicated, we do not actually appreciate the transformation in Asia. And I think this is related to what Professor Sun Ge said in the beginning of this panel. Thank you.
And I invite Professor Gomez. Professor Gomez, please.
I would like to start by thanking Professor Amako for this invitation to attend this conference. I would like to address some of the issues that have been brought up, specifically about the need to recognize reality and this issue of the traditional way of looking at the society and about the new thinking. I think these are important things that have been raised, but I would like to give a slightly different perspective. My talk will be based on 3 issues. First, let us go back to history and let us see how political theory has evolved, to give you an understanding of what needs to be done now. The second issue that I would like to address is why we need to come up with a new research agenda and the importance of this research agenda, primarily because it is based on the notions of significant transformations that have occurred within societies. The theory which I would like to draw reference to is modernization theory because I think that theory is most relevant for today’s discussion. Modernization theory evolved in the 1950s and the 1960s by people such as Samuel Huntington, who brought 3 important concepts ? ethnicity, development and democracy. And in that period the justification of this kind of theorizing was that it was to allow the US to support authoritarian regimes, especially developing world in this case Southeast Asia because of the fear that communism was spreading rapidly around the world. There are three basic tenants to Modernization Theory. First, a developing country needs an authoritarian system, where power is concentrated because this helps to ensure rapid economic growth, and it will create conditions for the promotion and consolidation of democracy in the long term. Second, if you have a strong state, then there is little resistance in the society and from NGOs and trade unions, and this will allow for the implementation of policies which will ensure rapid economic development. The third aspect of this theory is that, rapid economic progress will contribute to the rise of a new economically independent middle class for whom the threshold of authoritarian rule will diminish. This new middle class will then emerge as the vanguard for democracy. So goes the theory. By the early 1980s however, in the industrialized Asia, democracy still has not come. So it was proposed to the theorists ? “How do you explain the lack of democracy in the industrialized Asian?” And they propounded the argument of culture. Asian political culture is such that we emphasize the collective, not the individual. And the other point they stressed is that we Asians prefer dialog and consensus over conflict. Soon after that proposition was made, in the late 1980s and later after the 1997 economic crisis, democracy flourished in the region. It started first in underdeveloped Philippines, and then it moved on to encompass Taiwan, Korea, and Thailand. And the middle class was in the forefront of this change. These uprisings that occurred in the mid 1980s and after the 1997 currency crisis immediately defunct this whole argument about Asian Culture, and it being the convenient reason for maintaining authoritarian states. However one would think that we have learned our lessons from making this kind of arguments. That would not be the case. Subsequently a new dimension of the Modernization Theory has emerged, again trying to dress authoritarianism in a new gown. Here the argument that has been made is that in a multi-ethnic democratic system which has a capitalist system, if you have inequality in distribution of wealth among the ethnic communities, it will definitely lead to racial chaos. So the solution was that one will need to maintain authoritarian political system until parity is achieved in wealth distribution among all ethnic communities. And to resolve this kind of inequality, one would need to introduce policies such as affirmative action. Now the problem with this kind of theorizing is that it does not capture the complexities of ethnic and national identity. It does not capture how identities change. It does not capture how society is positively evolving. Second problem with this kind of theorizing is it essentializes the patterns of enterprise development, which means it suggests that all Chinese do businesses the same way, regardless of where they are based, whether in US, Europe, China or Southeast Asia. It also homogenizes ethnic communities of the Diaspora. That means whether you are an ethnic Chinese or Indian in US, Europe, India, Southeast Asia or China, you are all the same. You have the same cultural practices. You are unified because of ethnic identity. The third problem with this kind of theorizing is, as a policy recommendation, it suggests that you should target communities to address inequalities of wealth. The problem with policies that are targeted is that it reinforces ethnic identity in the long term. And it can in fact grow divisive. There is a huge debate now in terms of policy recommendations and whether it should be universal in orientation or whether it should be targeted. So if one looks at the type of theorizing that has emerged and constantly emerging which attempts to support an authoritarian kind of system, and which also tends to reinforce ethnic identity, we can come back to notions such as these: the clash or civilizations, global tribes, Chinese commonwealth. These are all concepts which are constantly being bombarded with for the past few years, which reinforce ethnic identity, as opposed to national identity. It reinforces to the point that all Chinese, all Indians, all Japanese and all Koreans have a certain style of doing businesses. It also more importantly, suggests that we all have certain cultural traits which are quite unique. For example, in the way we do businesses, we have family firms, trade guilds, and rotating credit associations, and most importantly, the idea of a homeland and a host country. Now an attempt to use this kind of argument in the Asian context is extremely problematic. For this reason, the US and Europe is still accepting large numbers of immigrants, and migration continues even into the modern era. In Southeast Asia, since the 1930s, strict immigration curbs have been put in place. So we don't see the migratory patterns that we see in the West. The other problem is, let us look at the ethnic communities in this region. The fact is as much as we are homogenized, there are serious divisions that exist between ethnic communities, which are based on language and religion. Another issue which I would like to stress is that if you look at ethnic communities, they are now third or fourth generation, many of whom no long look to China or India as the homeland. They identify with the country of birth. The idea of national identity is looming large. I would like to stress this concept of generational change, which is not included enough in any of the research I have seen so far in Southeast Asia. So what this means is, the time has come for us to propose a counter view. I am not saying that nobody has done it. I would like to draw your attention to for example the works of Ashish Nandy from India. Because Ashish Nandy drew significant attention to one important thing ? how things work in society. And he went and lived in a multi-ethnic city, the city of Cochin, to see how people live in their daily lives in this multi-ethnic city which has always been peaceful. And he found that there is a great sense of interdependency between people. They do appreciate ethnic differences, but there is also a sense of belonging to the same place and working together. There is a fine balance. He also drew attention to the fact that there is a need now to de-homogenize communities. Another person I would like to draw your attention to is Rogers Brubaker. Rogers Brubaker did a study of Gluchin in Romania, again multi-ethnic. And the reason why he specifically focused on this city was that he wanted to draw attention to the fact how the state can play a very divisive role in harming ethnic relations amongst people. There is another reason why I want to draw specifically to Modernization Theory. And that is because I want to draw attention to the concept of human rights. We have debated this concept of human rights and whether it should be brought into Human Security and I have been very concerned about this. I would like to state here categorically that I think we have to grapple and deal with this concept of Human Rights, and not run away from it. The reason for that is as you can see in the UN's formulation; we talked about the indivisibility of Human Rights. But on the ground, at the state level, the states have begun to make arguments that one should take into consideration the specific context of the country, reinforcing all arguments about culture. The second one is the idea of universalist versus relativist. The relativist argument is coming back more to the front and I think we should be weary of this when we talk about how we want to conceive Human Rights. Finally let me just come to the conclusion. How we may construct theories that are profoundly damaging. That is why a forum like this is important. I think there is a need for us to go into new research, which is based on the happenings of daily lives of society to understand what the real changes are. I would also like to make another argument. Academics also have to have a more activist beat and there is a need also for us to work with NGOs. I am quite happy to see the presence of NGOs here. And I think working through NGOs and with NGOs to disseminate the research findings will be the best way forward, thank you.
Thank you very much. Yes I think there is connectivity among the speakers. I think we can promote intra-debates among the panelists if time allows. I think Mr. Taga will be more comprehensive at connecting all the interventions. But before Mr. Taga, I would like to ask Professor Yi Kiho to make presentation.
I am very pleased and honored to have the opportunity to be enlightened in a meeting of this nature. You have my printouts already. Here I have jotted down the intellectuals and what they lost, and why we intellectuals should move. Relative to what intellectuals have lost for the past years, I think this point has already been alluded to. So skipping that, I would like to take up why the intellectuals should move. Since there were three speakers already, I would like to comment. I would like to say three things. One is that in simply terms, intellectuals have 2 roles. One is what it is and the other is what it should do. Professor Sun Ge has given us three types of intellectuals. But in simple terms I can say that client intellectuals and public intellectuals are the two separations that I would like to make. As to the role of intellectuals, already people have alluded to that point. Professor Amako has also strongly said that our communicating abilities or making of keywords so explanation can be delivered, which I think could be termed as accountability. Another is the change of the nation. Prier to going into that I would like to go into democracy and democratization as Professor Sun Ge has alluded to I would like to take up that topic first. The democratization movement has gone on in Korea in a history of 20 years. And during that time, democratization in Korea was such that democracy was said to be achieved through struggle. And there has been sadness etc. But democracy cannot be achieved in an instance. 20 years has passed, looking back we can see that what are we to look at and how have we activated democracy after democratization. And looking at what has changed, we have found out those human rights issues were focused on. Nation needs to be changed in order to change the human rights issue. And to change the nation, democratization was a path. After 20 years, looking back, we can say that whether or not Korea is true democracy or not, we can question that. Somewhat different from the other speakers is that democracy is based on the civic society, and obviously that is activated, and democratization is at the other end of such process. So in the case of Korea, prier to democratization obviously national security, like the military etc needs to be taken into consideration in order to look into people's human security. We can say that from state security we could shift towards human security. And from such perspective, Korea, in terms of the national and modern country, is very much like Japan. Japan use to concentrate on a strong state, as others speakers have mentioned, and I would say that was one type of thinking. But the current theme and whether or not that will realize human security or not is still a question. Unless we change the nation there is a question on whether we can realize security or not. So the nation, what it is, and how it should be should be modified into civic state, peaceful state, and green state as we also hear of and integrated state. Next year, there will be presidential elections, and the 2008 Olympics. But the nations need to be reborn. 90 years after the Russian revolution, we celebrate that USSR has been demolished. But if we would think of the nation, unless we change the nation the role of the nation cannot be improved or shifted, so I would like you to think of the nation, the state as topics of concern. There was also a mention about the nation by a previous speaker and there was mention about the remuneration of village. I would like to use the memory of the homeland rather than using the word dream. In memory, there is past memory. But looking into the future, the memory should be shared. In order to have a common memory, the intellectuals need to put it down in words, or else we cannot imagine. And I would say that is a major role of the intellectuals. I was enjoying a Japanese film in the airplane, a movie called “memory of tomorrow”. And a loving wife was succumbed to sickness. There the future is considered to be connected to the current situation. The people make effort in that direction. What we need to think is in relation to state, what they should do and what is lacking in the state. This topic of state needs to be considered at this juncture. Professor Amako mentioned of the Asian way of thinking. In Asian terms things need to be elaborated and I am in agreement that we need to communicate and transmit our ideas. And for which we need to express our discourse at certain place or forum. So intellectuals need to have the forum or place where they can communicate. Same thing can be said about the academic study. We have had efforts and we should show what we have done. And I would like to say that Asia as a place of living lives is very important. And the change that is also there needs to be studied. The issue of HIV, changes in villages, and changes in china has been very enlightening. We need to learn from the actual site or place or life of living. Intellectuals obviously are not to make the whole forum, but intellectuals who have observed the sites can clarify issues very well. We have heard from previous speakers. Professor Wang Ming mentioned about the HIV issues in the villages. And by visiting villages, it is important to clarify things there. Human security in the village may be realized in a similar light. People in each of the countries in Asia may have experienced the same already. 2 points I would like to indicate in terms of what needs to be overcome:
1. The cold war system. I have a different opinion compare to Professor Sun Ge. I do think the cold war system still remains in Asia. Although we have the meeting of 6 countries, but the North Korean setup was still based on cold war. Korea, Japan and the United States have alliance diplomacy, which supposes there is an enemy. Unless there is enemy, alliance will not be established. So alliance diplomacy proves that there is still a cold war system. What is required here is a system which does not need an enemy. Unless we have such a perspective, human security will have no significance.
2. Globalization based on neoliberalism. We have the topic of commercialization which is standing in front of us. The ways of the intellectuals, particularly client intellectuals, is very much like lawyers. In the democratization in Korea we have several such intellectuals. We need to regain public intellectuals. Commercialization is not he only thing, populism is also connected here. And I would like you to think in that term. Another result of neoliberalism is that in Asia we see an academician oriented society. I think we have heard from Professor Gomez, that the society is showing disparity, not only rich poor disparity but also regional disparity. And in order to overcome that, we need to have community building. In order to build a community, we need to have a virtue, or ethics, or discipline, etc... Unless we have that, I would say that is the major homework intellectuals need to take up in the future. And it needs to be taken in or be acceptable by the populous, for which we need to have the terms that people will understand and share them. So the memory towards the future can be obtained by joining hands or sharing. I think I have used all my time, so I would like to close my presentation, thank you.
My apologies for limiting you time, but I think we have had a very good presentation in a very dense context. And I would say that the last speaker Professor Taga will not have much to say. And the audience is very eager to speak, so we will have time for general discussion as well.
Everyone is thanking Professor Amako, but I would complain that this is a bad time of the year to be having this symposium. I am so busy with the entrance exams. Anyway, I think there is a big gap between myself and the rest of the panel. The reason is I am wearing 5 or 6 different caps. I am a professor at Waseda University. But this is just a disguise; actually my real job is somewhere else. And Professor Yi said that and who told you this concept that professors need to be on the field.
I think it was at the university and I think Professor Taga, you taught me that as well.
Well, you are right. For about 20 years now, I have lived in Nigata and I commute to Tokyo. And I have established one NGO in Nigata. Bangladesh, Laos and Vietnam were the countries we have actively engaged in. And we have students coming from Hirosaki who helped us. And Professor Yi, you helped us as well. So I am on the field and I am also a representative of NGO association in Nigata. I am also involved in other research institutes. I am also involved in the movement opposing the construction of dam and we successfully stopped the government from building a dam. So I am actually involved in real activities and at the same time I am teaching at the university, especially in the field of peace studies. There are so many other things that I am involved in but let me start my presentation
Now, listening to all your presentations about the roles of intellectuals, I think in a nutshell, intellectuals should have perception and understanding of real definite things better. Everyone on stage I think had the same message. Now applying that to Asia, again, there is this complex issue of commonality. You cannot locate something that does not exist. If it is proven that it is missing and if it is good, then we should create it. We should have a mechanism to create it. And we can consume it. If it did not work, maybe we can recreate. I think that is one of the major roles expected of intellectuals in this part of the world. The outline of my presentation is in front of you. You can ignore the first bullet point. For the last 20 years or so, whether you are looking at society or identity, emotional, functional, and issue-oriented, those three need to be separated. We are not succeeding in this; therefore I will not go into details of it. I just want to emphasize that we need to separate those 3. As I said earlier, I am involved in NGOs, and Mr. Taniyama from JVC who was with us yesterday is in Nigata today because of the NGO activity that I am involved in. and that is why he cannot be with us today. Anyway, so there is the chain reaction of hard war and there is a silent war going on as well. For example, in Laos and other parts of Asia there are farmers who are losing their land. That is what Mr. Taniyama said yesterday. He shared with us some data on that. And that was a very impressive presentation. Rather than covering the theoretical aspects, I would make a more practical proposition. And there are some specific suggestions, propositions that I am making. First point, in order to overcome the distance from the field, we need to collaborate with NGOs, as was emphasized by Professor Yi. And other people mentioned that as well. I think we need to have a crisis alert. I think intellectuals in Asia need to come up with the crisis alert system. And intellectuals are very fluent in many languages. So they can translate literature and culture as well. And through that you can come up with this crisis alert with universal aspects. For example, within the University of Waseda, there is the Institute of Peace Studies. And maybe we can create a function where when you access this institute, you can always look at up to date crisis information. And maybe you can have coordination with the NGOs in terms of exchanging experience. In other words, when you come here, you do have the information; when you come here, you can see your counter part. I think that is the function we can play. For example, if you are interested in what is happening in China, when you come here, you can get the latest information by being referred to the experts in China. That can be translated into Malay language and many other languages. And I think that is the role to be played by university intellectuals. As Hu Qin said, every single citizen speaks up. You need to speak up and I think that is the most difficult thing in Asia. We need to come up with mechanism that will facilitate speaking up. And that is a good part of this crisis alert. First you have to have the guiding principles. In Chinese, we need to have a concentration of information, which will then be distributed evenly and fairly. And the information has to be constantly updated to ensure credibility. If we are successful in this endeavor, I think human security can be improved. There are always people who will resort to violence. And I think the underline cause is the same. For example, about what is happening in Southern Thailand, conventional response will be to crush it with force but more recent approach is trying to remove the cause of that through international collaboration. So at least we have made little progress there instead of responding to those crises by force. We are now living in a world where there are international force trying to remove the cause of violence. That is a suggestion I have. Why can’t intellectuals do this, be it in China, Japan or Thailand? I think it is only the university professors who can be full day citizens. The rest of the people for example the farmers, they can be ordinary citizen only when they are not out in the field. Or if you are an employee, you cannot be an ordinary citizen during 9 to 5. That is why I say as university professors we can afford to be full day citizens. And I think that is the role university intellectuals can play. Why do I say this? Well, Professor Yi talked about the state. And I think what Dr. Katsuma said earlier is important. Why do we need human security? Because there are trans-boundary issues, and there are complexes within the state, and against such a backdrop, we need the trans-boundary movements. And that is why we need human security. I think the residents, citizens, and activities, and discussions should be separated. And I think I was able to finish within 15 minutes for a change.
Well I guess I do not really need to summarize and off course I can summarize. Base on what we have discussed so far, and including the direction of this symposium, I think Professor Taga was very eloquent in stating where we are. We do have some time left. I think we have had some overlaps and issues that were mentioned most upon. I wonder if the members of the panel have any comments or questions you like to make in relation to what others had said. Are there any additional comments you would like to make? If not, I would like to entertain questions from he floor. We do have guests, the panel members from previous sessions. This would be the last opportunity, so any comments from the members of the panel?
One thing in relation to what I said yesterday, I think Professor Wen said that state capitalism was disaster. Where do disasters come from? And why there are so many disasters in Asia. I think that was the question raised. I think he did talk a little bit about the causes of the disaster. Let me emphasize that underneath the capitalism there are modernity as well, or modernization. Nationalism, modernization, globalization, capitalism, neoliberalism, off course they are not interchangeable. But they all contribute to disaster. I would like to emphasize that. And why is it that we cannot coordinate among them successfully? And why is it that we are seeing so many disasters in Asia? I think the thing we need to pay attention to is that we are divided in East Asia. And I think that is the underline reason why we are discussing human security as well.
Yes, I was very impressed with Professor Wen as well. Who was the one raised hand for questions and comments?
I have a question to Professor Sun Ge. In your presentation, you said intellectuals have a role to play. In your paper, you introduced the view of Yoshimi Takeuchi who did not resort to the categories, preferring to take into consideration of a historical sensibility, which is not expressed by the languages. I would like to know the historical sense or sensitivity. I was very impressed by this kind of thinking which views sensitivity as being more important than reason when looking at history, so intellectuals have played a role in expressing something which cannot be expressed by verbal language. And in the post war era, with the clash of nationalism after the war, and when you talk about historical approach, how do you approach Asian nationalism? If you have any specific keyword, I would appreciate if you can share with us.
I would like to entertain more questions before the panelists start answering.
I have 2 questions. My understanding is that when you mention the aim of enhancing human security in a region wide basis, it is through the creation of an East Asian Community. My first question is, if you would kindly agree with this, how realistic you think it is to form East Asian Community? Do you think that it is realistic enough to make some efforts? Or do you think it is close to a dream? And my second question is, if you are to form an East Asia Community, what you think can unit all Asians? Maybe excluding Russians, but when I say all Asians, I meant including the Chinese and Indians. But what kind of factors, or common philosophy can unit all Asians? Do you think it can be freedom, or democracy, or what?
Thank you. Anybody who would like to answer this question, would you please prepare yourself? Are there any other questions from the floor?
It is a related question about Asian Community. I am very encouraged by you interpretation to work on the ground. You act to make environment and conditions. And you take action. That is a good cycle. For NGOs to work there must be international exchange among the NGOs, sometimes working towards disaster mitigation measures. And globalization, maybe there is an end to it. Clones or cybogs, those are the end products of advanced technology. And then if you have such artificial things, people-centered approach would diminish. So that would be the end of globalization. With the end to globalization, would there be an end to the possible Asian Community? What is the scenario or the future for us?
That is a very difficult question or intervention. But somebody has to answer his question.
The role of university, I would like to ask Dr. Kimbeng Phar and Professor Yi about the role of universities. Professor Taga proposed that only university professors are available for 24 hour civic activities. But there are professors who represent market economy. I am not criticizing those Professors, those client intellectuals. There should be a diversity of university professors. So what is the role of university? In the 21st century, people say that we have civic society, market economy and national government. They are the decision makers and university maybe coordinator among the three. Or as Professor Taga said, university should represent civil society. So what are the vision and the roles of university in the future in Asia? This specific question goes to Dr. Kim Bengphar and Professor Yi.
I am a house wife. From the prospective of citizens, I have learnt a great deal. The reason why I am here is to pose one question. Human security is very important because it guarantees the lives of the people, the individuals. And I think Japanese is responsible for human security, because there is a rumor for the possible revision of Japanese peace constitutions, Article 9 of Japanese constitution. And off course when you talk about human security, you cannot neglect the importance of Article 9 of the Japanese constitution. What is the future of Japan if we revise Article 9? Off course it is important to have East Asia network or human community. EU is an economic and social union and NATO is a military alliance, so Asia Human Community embodies all those aspects, economic, political, military and social aspect. If we have an organization comparable to NATO in East Asia would that endangers article 9 of peace constitution? Thank you.
Thank you very much. I think we had very major and very heavy questions. To start, let me ask Professor Sun Ge, as there was a question directed to you, particularly in the historical perspective. Do you think we can start from there?
I think a very important issue was put forward and I thank you for it. The historic perspective and the importance I put to it is because firstly it is related to or based on the political aspect. From the economic perspective today, economists are normally in focus. And this is easy to understand. I would say this is the core of social progress or social movement in the society in general. The issue is taking a historical perspective, the economists and the economic movement, are the major movements. Obviously we need to do away with having no profits, or even losing profits. Therefore we cannot understand the concept. For the economists there need to be understanding here. But from the perspective of politics, I would say there are so much waste. Politics is pursuing something that is not bringing profit. For example, in the case of war, I would say that this is not profit-making. So within that context, the question is why this happens. I have to say that this is related to humanity. That is what I think. So in looking at political history, political ideology and history, we have a difficulty that we cannot analyze by means of analyzing ideology along because there is a continuing change of the humanity. So in that sense the role of intellectuals comes to the front. I feel that for example as Professor Taga proposed to go to the site, the place so that information can be precisely grasped. It was a very important proposal, but if I may add, there is a question as to how can you gasp the information with such accuracy, and to what extent of accuracy. Obviously there are information that is easy to grasp, and there are that not. For example, sociologists in China in their field work produce certain results. According to certain survey, the highest level of happiness was produced among the poorest farmers. In interpreting this data, there need to be certain procedure. The framer’s living conditions have been reformed drastically and therefore I would say that they had a feeling of happiness which is ranked very highly. That is one thing, but the result of the field study is not erroneous. Because there is an expectation for the living conditions of the farmers, the satisfaction of that expectation is somewhat relative in nature. And against that the rich have the lowest level of happiness, because they have the feeling for danger and they feel that they are unstable. So what is the standard of observing these matters? Historical perspective comes into play here. The role that we can play is important. One is related to this historical situation, and to formulate the ideas of people with different historical perspective. In other words, relying on the terms of language, and at the same time you don’t rely on the language, which is a paradox so to speak. The language has limitations and behind that there are feelings and therefore in order to formulate that specifically will in terms of the new request that will come, we need to realize this as our task into the future. And as to the community, and how the community should be I may comment that East Asian community can exist. And how this can exist and how this can be realized? Is it that we cannot realize this dream? I think that this is a very important issue. There is a Sino-Japanese friendship movement for 20 years. And people have endeavored to go through this movement. And the question is, because of this request or hope, had the issues between China and Japan resolved? Behind that there is a very grand task. Like in the case of the morning session we have observed Professor Wen Tiejun in his analysis of the economy, the power distribution in International Relations and also the history. There is disagreement regarding this. And therefore I think we can do something about it. Although we are restricted, I think we can do this. For intellectuals I think there are things can be done and those cannot be done. Regarding capitalists or capital, we cannot change that in international economy. As Professor Taga has mentioned, we should grasp information rightly and precisely and if we make efforts in that direction, I think we can realize this to a certain extent. And in the making of the community, I think this will become the basis of the Asian Community.
Thank you very much. I think we are pressed with time. We were to wrap up at 15 minutes before 6. But I think we can end by 6 at the latest. Because there will be a final remark as well. Taking that in mind, I think there was a question by Dr. Kuruda, which was directed to Dr. Kimbeng Phar.
From the audience there was a question on whether East Asian Community was possible or not. Well the issue is that even if it is not possible, you have to make it possible. In other words it is a creation of political necessity by virtue of the friction and conflict we have in the northern part of Asia, where you have China and Japan constantly in various kinds of conflict. And if you include North Korea and South Korea, the friction gets enlarged. So it is crucial to maintain this momentum. So the issue is not whether it is possible, rather the issue is how we could collectively work together to make it a higher probability so that it could achieve substantial success. The second question asked was what the unifying philosophy of East Asian Community is. I will just give you a negative part to that answer. The goal obviously is trying to avoid conflict. But there is also another positive dimension to it. Policy-wise we should not be too concerned with the diversity of the region. Ultimately we are human beings that try to find our private and public space to coexist together. And to that end that is our common and joint goals. We should always try to foster collective solidarity to achieve something that is larger than ourselves, larger than our nation states, larger than our individual identity, and something that can ultimately provide the platform and umbrella that can unit us as human beings. And having said so, this is not an entirely new age because classical Chinese and other forms of Asian philosophy have always emphasized the importance of the mandate of heaven and living under the state of peace. The third question that I have from Dr. Kuruda is what the role of the university is. A student of mine asked me few months ago why Asian universities are not as famous as those in the West. In other words, why can’t we compare with places in Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford and the likes? My answer was that because most of the universities in Asia were closely and intimately tied to nation building. There is nothing wrong with universities trying to help the nation to try to fight its footing in an anarchical international system. Nothing wrong at all. In fact, universities should perform the role of trying to stabilize and provide a vision for the country to go forward. But unfortunately the nation state is a political animal that is subject to the capture of elite interests. In other words, when you have independence for 15, 20, 30 years, at certain stage states have to relieve control of the instruments, machinery and power. And they perpetuate the system in such a way to serve them, rather than to serve the people like you and me. So at certain stage, the university must also make the critical jump to delink and uncouple itself from the government machinery. Now the issue is when a university evolve to such as stage, it requires a vice chancellor and a group of intellectuals, or administrators and even the student body to try to say enough is enough; we had already help the nation state to grow and develop; now we want to become a world class, independent and autonomous university. So that is the role and mission of all universities. To say to the state that we have had very good relationship and now we need to be on separate ways.
Ok, I will try to be very brief. I did talk about intellectuals without the field. I think it is going to be very difficulty to create East Asian Community. I think it is going to take decades to create East Asian Community. It cannot be created overnight. But having said that, when it comes to citizens or states, I think you need to change the state itself. Without the transformation of the state, I am rather doubtful whether the community can be created. And in that sense I think it is going to take some time. Now, how can we transform a state? That is a question I said earlier. It is exactly the same as saying that intellectuals without the field, as there are no states without locale. In other words, in order to create a state you need to have a transnational civil society. Transnational locale is another buzzword today. And I think it could be a very important concept in terms of creating East Asian Community as well. Another question is about article 9 of the Japanese constitution. What Professor Amako has proposed is not the Asian Community, but the Asian Human Community, in other words, community with the human aspect. So how can we change Asia with the human aspect? Humans are part of the society and part of the nature. And in relation to article 9, where are the resources in Asia is a question we have to ask. In order to have a strong state, you need resources, such as oil. But in order to create Asian Human Community, what kind of resources do we need? That is something we need to define. Article 9 can be one of the assets that we have in Asia. Who created that? With what intention? That could be questioned but we also need to ask how we can make much of this today. So it is not just Article 9. We who are interested to create Asian Human Community, need to ask what other assets we have? What other resources do we need and do we have? One more thing, Asia is asymmetric, with different history, population, level of democratization, level of development, but I think the same applies to the roles to be played by universities. Things are different from country to country. So as Dr. Kuruda said, they are different, but the way I understood Professor Taga’s message is that we do have a potential to become full time citizens. Maybe not all university professors, but as a trend, we see more and more client intellectuals. We should be mindful of that and try to do things differently. And in relation to what Professor Taga said, these days housewives are full day citizens, while men maybe weekend citizens. Some men even try to avoid being weekend citizens. There was a popular song in Japan in the late 1970s saying that husbands could be chauvinistic pigs. The title of the song was “I am declaring to be a chauvinistic pig”. And I think he has to declare because men were not chauvinistic. And the next song this song writer wrote was “I was thrown out of being a chauvinist”, which means that in a modern state the roles played by man need to change. We need to change the state and we need to change the roles played by man. And in the light of those changes, I think the roles to be played by universities need to change as well.
Thank you. Professor Taga, Professor Gomez, I would like to hear from you but we are already running over time 16 minutes. So I am afraid I cannot give you the opportunity. So we are going to conclude here. But just one thing, since this question of Article 9 of the constitution was brought up. I would like to say just one word about my personal view. I said this morning that this East Asian community concept in terms of economy is a functional one. But it also means strategic approach based on national interest. But what we are advocating here is the bottom up approach. In reality, these 3 approaches are blended and mixed. And in reality I think all 3 are needed. So in terms of hard security, or traditional security, new framework is needed. And that I think would involve this discussion about possible revision of the Japanese constitution. But in discussing that I think everyone of us needs to revisit the issue and the spirit of the constitution. We do not necessarily have to mix the discussion of the spirit of the constitution and rewording the constitution. Once upon a time one person said that Mao Zedong’s word should not be revised even a word. And as Professor Yi said, Article 9 is part of the asset and therefore how do we define the spirit of the constitution is a question we have to ask ourselves. And with that we like to conclude this symposium. But before we do that we like to have a closing remark from the representative of the parent organization of this symposium.
Well I would like to thank all the speakers for spending 2 days for a very intense discussion. Also I would like to thank the participants. My name is Katsuko Mori and I am the leader of the COE/CAS, as has just been introduced. This is the last international symposium held under us and I would like to thank you all that we have been able to end this very successfully. Thanks to your cooperation and support. This morning unfortunately I had another engagement and yesterday too. So I was just sitting here attending the afternoon session only. But base on that I would like to share with you some of my thoughts and observations. First I have to give you some caveat. The thesis advocated by Dr. Taga, or what we call the Taga Thesis is that researchers need to be out on the field. I basically oppose that. I think researchers’ job is research. Our value is in research. And that is where we can provide value to the society. And that is my philosophy. So I am going to be very critical but please bear with me. Most probably you are going to say what she is talking about, just listening to half day’s presentation? So some of you may feel a bit upset, but this is just for your information. Now about the contemporary Asian studies, I have just some words. Why are we doing this is because Asia is becoming more Asian. I think you observe that listening to the presentations today. The professors with different backgrounds are trying to speak using the same language and we are now coming together to create a human network. And I think that is a very prominent phenomenon of Asianization of Asia. How are we different from Europe, for example? Why is it that social studies based on Europe or European social science cannot really analyze Asia? That is what we try to do. That is one thing we try to do. And another is that while we see the regionalization, what will be the future order in this Asian regionalism. That is another thing that we try to address. Over the last 4 years, we had very heated debate on this. I am not going to go into the details here. When we were to design an East Asian Community, there are 3 concepts. One is that we are talking about the community of the people, not the community of the states or nations. Second is that it is not mono-functional, but multi-functional community. We need efforts to make sure that it will be a multi-functional community. Third is that including the roles to be played by the intellectuals, the public goods concept need to be shared? Is oil a public good? Or is the safety of Malacca Strait or peace and safety of people in these regions common goods? That was the third pillar. Now listing to the presentations today, there are two things that came to my mind. One, on human security, especially in the second session of the day, meaning the first session in the afternoon, I have always had problem with this term ? human security. The basic question is what human is? Why do we say human? Because it is not a nation state and it is borderless. Also, by human, we imply human kind or mankind, so what is inhuman would be animal. So when we say human security in that context, what are we talking about? What do we mean by human? And I have always wondered whether or not it is clear. Maybe we are talking about human overall are not states, governments, organizations or corporations. Or are we talking about individuals? First we need to clarify that, I think. Because when we say human security, there are so many aspects. So we need to really segment that. And another is about security, non-traditional security, and human security and either way, you use the term security. My understanding is that security is based on or assumes states. But now it is expanding. Individual security is now generally incorporated in the discussion. But I think it would be a bit dangerous to securitize everything because the area where the state could be involved will expand. For example, non-traditional security in South East Asia often involves pirates. Off course that is a non-traditional threat. But once it is branded as a threat, then the defense capability force could come into picture. The same applies to SARS. In other words, by using the word security, automatically there is a question of who is going to provide the security? And what are you going to securitize? I think you need to really think hard about that. And since I belong to the cold war generation, I have the cold war orientation or cold war thinking. And so I would like to see we need to go back to the thinking of the cold war generation. And that is, what threatens safety. For example, we might think that states need to provide that, but maybe the states failed to do that, or may be the state is over-functioning. This is the questions that we have always asked when we were younger. For example, there was a Japanese youth who died in Iraq. He was reckless, and even went to Iraq. And he was captured by terrorists there. And he was killed. And what was the general public opinion to that? It said that it was himself who took his own risk. But I think the state should have provided the safety of this man. Most probably during cold war, not everything was bad. And we had a heated discussion as to what is the role to be played by the state. For example, Professor Yi Kiho advocated transforming the state. And he said that without transforming the state, East Asian Community is hard to build. Yes, when we say human security, who is going to provide the security of whom? This is a question that we have to ask. As about the role of intellectuals in Asia, you hear the discussion among the younger people that it is important to have common language. Professor Yi Kiho said that we need to have common memory. Unfortunately Asians do not share common memories. Off course you may be able to find it if you work hard. But as intellectuals it is our responsibilities to create common memories. And for that purpose this kind of network would contribute to the creation of common memories. I hope that for the next forum, we can take this up for discussion. Thank you very much for staying with us for a long time, thank you.
Thank you very much, Professor Mori. And she is always provocative. And again she was provocative in her closing remarks. And she gave us another big challenge that we need to have another forum. Off course what she said has already been discussed for the past two days, although we did not have a clear cut answer. What Professor Mori said is that we have to revisit what she said after this session. And we are behind schedule, and outside it is getting dark. Sorry, I have not been able to keep time. But I hope this symposium has been meaningful and productive. And as an organizer I think I can safely say that this symposium has been a good one and a productive one. Thank you everyone.